Varjabedian v. City Of Madera

572 P.2d 43 (1977)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Varjabedian (P) acquired a vineyard of about 80 acres in Madera County. P moved to the property in 1971 with their three children. In 1972, the City of Madera (D) began operation of a new wastewater treatment plant on land located some 600 feet from P’s residence. The plant emits odors, which are blown onto P’s property by prevailing winds. Ps complained and were told by D that the plant would eventually be made odor free. P kept a log of the occurrence and intensity of the smells, and his attempts to persuade D to remedy the situation. P sued on July 1973. P set forth four theories of recovery; negligence in design, construction and operation of the plant; nuisance; maintenance of a dangerous and defective condition; and inverse condemnation. Ps voluntarily dismissed the actions for negligence and maintenance of a defective condition. D then moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial judge granted the motion as to inverse condemnation under the belief that recovery under that theory required physical damage to the property. The case went to trial on nuisance. P sought recovery for a permanent diminution in the value of their property as well as compensation for personal discomfort and damages for the loss of a Cal-Vet loan which financed the purchase of the bulk of the property in that they would be compelled to move off the property and would forfeit the loan and then pay higher prices to refinance at a higher rate. The jury gave P the verdict for $32,000 for loss in value, $30,000 in special damages for the loss of the Cal-Vet loan and $11,000 in damages to each of the five plaintiff members of P’s family. D appealed. P cross-appealed for the judgment on the pleadings for the inverse condemnation cause of action. D contends that the jury instructions allowed for the consideration of effects of the plant construction other than the odors it emitted. P contends that physical damages to property are not necessary in an inverse condemnation action.